I care but when I go back and watch highlights from games in the 70s and 80s it really depresses me to see how much less interesting the game has become.

How many 300+ pound players were there in the 70s who ran a 4.6 40?

Players are significantly stronger and faster now than they were 40 years ago. If they were aloud to play the way they could then, life-altering injuries would occur on a regular basis, and there would probably be some deaths.

Players are significantly stronger and faster now than they were 40 years ago. If they were aloud to play the way they could then, life-altering injuries would occur on a regular basis, and there would probably be some deaths.

So they are all bigger and stronger. It's all relative. Stupid thought process you have.

Players are significantly stronger and faster now than they were 40 years ago. If they were aloud to play the way they could then, life-altering injuries would occur on a regular basis, and there would probably be some deaths.

So the defense got bigger and stronger while the offense stayed the same as the 70s?

Get out of here with that shit.

__________________
Tell me, what lunatic asylum did they let you out of?

I care about safety but I also see guys making absurd amounts of money to play a game. Part of the payday includes assuming some of the risks. You don't make that kinda coin in any field without assuming some serious risks whether it be financial or physical.

__________________
An armed member of society is a citizen, an unarmed member is a subject.

They should protect them the way they protect every other player. You want to prevent flagrant hits. You don't want to completely prevent hits altogether. Part of the game for everyone is playing through pain, and part of the game is injury. That's just the way it is. Players get hurt, and it doesn't have to have anything to do with tackling. Hell, we've seen qbs break fingers and hands because they hit a guy's helmet on a follow through. Uh oh, that dastardly defensive player got his head in the way!

There are far too many flags for plays that aren't even remotely flagrant.

I hate when people say "part of the game" as if that means you're not allowed to change things. Injuries are a part of the game. That doesn't mean you can't reduce them. I hate injuries. I want to see the best players on the field. And I especially don't want to see players "cheat" by knocking the best players out of the game because there's a loose interpretation of what a legal hit is.

It's pretty simple. Don't lead with your helmet. Form tackle. Don't do things extracurricularly that could injure another player (e.g. roll into a QBs legs or try to kill the QB instead of going for a sack). And stop teaching defenders the mentality that your goal is to knock players out.

Thing is... coaches who coach good fundamental football? They have no problem with the increased enforcement of these rules.

****ed up or not, hits like this are what make the game fun to watch. You'd be lying to say you don't enjoy seeing them. And if you do enjoy them, and want to see them, then you don't care about player safety either. You may tell yourself you do, but you don't. Not talking specifically about you but just people in general.

That was a completely legal hit.http://bayarea.sbnation.com/49ers/20...e-early-doucet
I don't have a problem with hits like that. That was shoulder first into a receiver's torso. There's something that receivers can do to avoid getting lit up like that, which is to not try to catch passes right in front of safeties. Clean hits are absolutely fine with me. If a ball carrier is going out of bounds but takes an extra step or two in front of the pursuing defender, I want the defender to deliver a clean inbounds hit. That's part of the game in my opinion. If a player doesn't want to get hit, then he should step out of bounds earlier.

I do care a lot about player safety, though. I don't like players taking unnecessary risks, especially players who will not realize until far down the road that they did things to themselves that were not in their interests.

If a player gets lit up, I want there to be independent and qualified experts evaluating whether the player is ready to return to action. That's a simple step to take. Teams that know how to protect their players will benefit at the expense of teams that don't. That's how the game should be.

That was a completely legal hit.http://bayarea.sbnation.com/49ers/20...e-early-doucet
I don't have a problem with hits like that. That was shoulder first into a receiver's torso. There's something that receivers can do to avoid getting lit up like that, which is to not try to catch passes right in front of safeties. Clean hits are absolutely fine with me. If a ball carrier is going out of bounds but takes an extra step or two in front of the pursuing defender, I want the defender to deliver a clean inbounds hit. That's part of the game in my opinion. If a player doesn't want to get hit, then he should step out of bounds earlier.

I do care a lot about player safety, though. I don't like players taking unnecessary risks, especially players who will not realize until far down the road that they did things to themselves that were not in their interests.

If a player gets lit up, I want there to be independent and qualified experts evaluating whether the player is ready to return to action. That's a simple step to take. Teams that know how to protect their players will benefit at the expense of teams that don't. That's how the game should be.

Here's the problem. That's a legal hit, but if the receiver did anything (e.g. duck or go low), then it becomes an illegal hit. And then the defender would have complained about intent. "Oh, well I was going for the torso, but the receiver ducked."

Sorry, I don't like those kinds of tackles. That's a kill shot where he missiles into the defender with his shoulder. That same play could have been made by making a play for the ball or a hard form tackle.

I like the NFL's definition of a defenseless player and the fact that it penalizes certain actions against such players. That's a good rule, in my opinion. It protects players without taking away from the game.

Here's the problem. That's a legal hit, but if the receiver did anything (e.g. duck or go low), then it becomes an illegal hit. And then the defender would have complained about intent. "Oh, well I was going for the torso, but the receiver ducked."

Sorry, I don't like those kinds of tackles. That's a kill shot where he missiles into the defender with his shoulder. That same play could have been made by making a play for the ball or a hard form tackle.

Interesting. If it's possible for a receiver to do something to take an unnecessary blow to the head in order to get some penalty yards, then that would defeat the purpose of the defenseless receiver rule, wouldn't it? Yeah, I could see how that would be a problem. Fortunately, for the Goldson on Doucet hit, that didn't happen, but I could see how a similar situation could arise and then lead to the perversity that receivers make themselves unnecessary victims.

I also see what you mean by the hard form tackle perhaps being preferable. Tangentially related to that, I have to say that the celebratory behavior of Goldson afterwards was classless. Still, he did carry out the primary responsibility in that situation for a defender, which is to administer enough force cleanly on the receiver to make it very difficult for the receiver to complete the reception. A hard form tackle could have done the same thing.

Interesting. If it's possible for a receiver to do something to take an unnecessary blow to the head in order to get some penalty yards, then that would defeat the purpose of the defenseless receiver rule, wouldn't it? Yeah, I could see how that would be a problem. Fortunately, for the Goldson on Doucet hit, that didn't happen, but I could see how a similar situation could arise and then lead to the perversity that receivers make themselves unnecessary victims.

I also see what you mean by the hard form tackle perhaps being preferable. Tangentially related to that, I have to say that the celebratory behavior of Goldson afterwards was classless. Still, he did carry out the primary responsibility in that situation for a defender, which is to administer enough force cleanly on the receiver to make it very difficult for the receiver to complete the reception. A hard form tackle could have done the same thing.

Here's the easy answer to this. If you form tackle, you're probably not going to get flagged. That goes for defenseless receivers too. That goes for unintentional helmet-to-helmet. Anytime you missile yourself into a defender with your helmet or with a lead shoulder (vs. your shoulders), you have no reason to complain even if your intention was to go after the torso or chest. You might accidentally go too high or your offensive guy you're trying to hit might go too low.

It's why I have no problems with flagging and penalizing these hits. If you want to stop getting flagged, then stop missiling yourself into players.

I hate when people say "part of the game" as if that means you're not allowed to change things. Injuries are a part of the game. That doesn't mean you can't reduce them. I hate injuries. I want to see the best players on the field. And I especially don't want to see players "cheat" by knocking the best players out of the game because there's a loose interpretation of what a legal hit is.

It's pretty simple. Don't lead with your helmet. Form tackle. Don't do things extracurricularly that could injure another player (e.g. roll into a QBs legs or try to kill the QB instead of going for a sack). And stop teaching defenders the mentality that your goal is to knock players out.

Thing is... coaches who coach good fundamental football? They have no problem with the increased enforcement of these rules.

Where did I say anything that disagrees with any of that?

What I'm saying is that they need to apply the same rules to everyone, protect everyone from illegal hits, emphasize correct fundamentals, but don't make it tackle football for 10 players and two hand touch for the 11th.

I'm not saying I want to see QBs knocked out, I'm saying I want to stop seeing flags when when a guy's finger touches the QB somewhere above his waist. It's getting ridiculous. I'm not saying go back to the 60s and 70s and make it open season.

What I'm saying is that they need to apply the same rules to everyone, protect everyone from illegal hits, emphasize correct fundamentals, but don't make it tackle football for 10 players and two hand touch for the 11th.

I'm not saying I want to see QBs knocked out, I'm saying I want to stop seeing flags when when a guy's finger touches the QB somewhere above his waist. It's getting ridiculous. I'm not saying go back to the 60s and 70s and make it open season.

They do over-penalize QB hits.

But again... we know how damn important the QB is in this era. I don't have any problem doing whatever it takes to make sure a defense doesn't get a competitive advantage by knocking a QB out of the game. Gregg Williams is a perfect example of why you need extra rules in place. You don't want to open any window that lets a defender think it's okay to go a little beyond the rules to knock a QB out. You give a defender an inch of leeway, he'll take it a mile.

I want to see the best players on the field. And I hate watching teams lose games and seasons because they had to throw a backup QB in the game. If that means pussifying the QB position, fine.